People v. Hunter

Decision Date22 September 1961
Docket NumberNo. 35529,35529
Citation23 Ill.2d 177,177 N.E.2d 138
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Paul HUNTER, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Allen S. Gerrard, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and M. Robert Ostrow, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

BRISTOW, Chief Justice.

As a result of a finding of guilty by a jury in criminal court of Cook County, the defendant in June, 1959, was sentenced to the Illinois penitentiary for an indeterminate term of 10 to 20 years for robbery while armed.

Paul Hunter comes here on writ of error, seeking a review of his conviction contending principally that his identification was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He also argues that the trial court erred in giving for the State an alibi instruction which has heretofore been condemned by this court. The defendant failed to assert this error in his written motion for a new trial. We have frequently held that where grounds for a motion for new trial are stated in writing, the party is limited to the errors alleged in the written motion and all other errors are deemed to have been waived. People v. Flynn, 8 Ill.2d 116, 133 N.E.2d 257.

Turning our attention to the proof adduced on trial, we find Anna Hope, the prosecuting witness, was on the threshold of graduation at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, at the time of the occurrence in question. On the evening of March 16, 1959, Miss Hope went over to Scott Hall, which is a study lounge of Northwestern University to prepare for two final examinations which she was to take the following day. At 8:45 that evening she visited the woman's lounge which contained wash basins and toilets. As she emerged from the lavatory she found herself confronted by a man who inquired if there was any one else in the toilet enclosure. He then made an indecent proposal to Miss Hope whereupon she very cleverly persuaded the intruder to refrain from molesting her. However, he took from her all the money she possessed-four $1 bills. During this incident the weapon he displayed was a screwdriver.

Miss Hope reported her experience to the Evanston police and was requested the next day to scrutinize a large collection of photographs. She identified Paul Hunter as her assailant. This led to the arrest of the defendant who was placed in a line the following day at the Evanston police station when Miss Hope identified him with certainty.

On the trial Miss Hope was positive in her testimony that the defendant was the person who assaulted her in the woman's lounge of Scott Hall. She recognized a coat and cap found in the possession of the defendant on the date of his arrest as the one he was wearing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • People v. Ledferd
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 3, 1968
    ...a party is limited to the claim of error set out in the motion for a new trial and that all other errors are waived. People v. Hunter, 23 Ill.2d 177, 177 N.E.2d 138; People v. Whitehead, 35 Ill.2d 501, 221 N.E.2d 256. In Hunter, error as to an instruction upon alibi is included in the doctr......
  • People v. Ikerd
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1963
    ...130, 134, 154 N.E.2d 67.) However, a single identifying witness has been held sufficient to sustain a conviction. People v. Hunter, 23 Ill.2d 177, 180, 177 N.E.2d 138; People v. Brown, 16 Ill.2d 482, 485, 486, 158 N.E.2d In the case at bar the evidence shows that the identifying witness, Lu......
  • People v. Harter
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 20, 1967
    ...set forth in defendant's written motion for new trial (People v. Armes, 28 Ill.2d 83, 87, 190 N.E.2d 812 (1963); People v. Hunter, 23 Ill.2d 177, 178, 177 N.E.2d 138 (1961); People v. Flynn, 8 Ill.2d 116, 118, 119, 133 N.E.2d 257 (1956)), and because the defendant failed to abstract all of ......
  • People v. Galloway
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1963
    ...we find that the single contention properly preserved for review by defendant's written motion for a new trial, (See People v. Hunter, 23 Ill.2d 177, 177 N.E.2d 138; People v. Flynn, 8 Ill.2d 116, 133 N.E.2d 257,) is whether prejudicial error occurred when the witness, after being asked on ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT